--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector-
The thought that "rogue" elements perpetrated 9-11 has never entered my
mind and it is, to me, absolutely ludicrous. That is one of the oldest
red herrings in the book. I cannot discuss this now as I am about to
publish a major story but I can guarantee that you will never hear me
suggest that a few CIA guys got drunk and decided to pull this attack
off. This is something that can ONLY have been carried out as a matter
of policy with a distinct chain of command reaching ABOVE the White
House.
Mike Ruppert
-----Original Message-----
From: grimalkin_q [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 12:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [CIA-DRUGS] MIKE RUPPERT -Re: "Mike" Vreeland: The Tight-Lipped
Everyman's Deep Throat
Say, Mike -- thought I'd let you know that my own interpretation of what
I'=
ve read of your writings is that HIGH ESCHELONS of government had
foreknowle=
dge; indeed, I don't believe that you've even ever mentioned "rogue
elements=
" in terms of the CIA,et al.
That was my conclusion on the morning of 911 --- as a "stupid"
American, i=
t is inconceivable to me that what occured could occur without inside
help -=
- and thus I believe that ALL our intelligence agencies are/were
severely co=
mpromised.
My conclusion may be utterly erroneous; however, since it was made
during t=
he shock of real time 911, it is deeply embedded, whether factual or
not.
AND, for me -- the term "insiders", the ones who I believe are
ultimately b=
ehind this atrocious travesty -- for me, they can live in and be
citizens of=
any country, not just America, whose intelligence apparatus appeared
severe=
ly sabotaged.
So, anyway, I haven't seen this hypothesis in YOUR writings, which I
think =
I would have noticed, as it was my first reaction, and thus has a
certain "p=
et" theory status.
I have seen you refer repetitively to high eschelons of government - and
I =
don't know if your thesis is correct about their foreknowledge.
And although neither you or Sean asked, I consider you both to be
American =
citizens who are genuinely concerned with unravelling the enigmas
currently =
surrounding 911, and I do not see either of you having allegiance to
anythi=
ng other than what is the best for American interests, both long term
and sh=
ort term.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "grimalkin_q" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thank you for your lucid, most thought provokative posting. I intend
to p=
ri=
> nt it off in many multiples to share with offline acquaintances.
>
> I would, however, urge an appendum to those FOUR groups of people.
>
> I believe that their is a fifth group, to which I belong, and to which
th=
e =
> great majority of my acquaintances belong. We are all quite aware that
th=
is =
> enigma is WAY over our heads, for we are pure and simple citizens with
ab=
sol=
> utely no personal experience in the world of espionage. <g>
>
> However, even for those of us who are not afficianados of spy novels,
the=
f=
> act is that MOST American adults are fully cognizant of the facts
surroun=
din=
> g disinformation and can surmise that there will be innumerable
attempts =
to =
> discredit ALL researchers, by many possible agencies, for many
possible r=
eas=
> ons, even a reason so "benign" that some stray Net troll decides to
injec=
t t=
> heir own brand of power and "humor" into otherwise sober, serious
online =
dis=
> cussions.
>
> For us, then, 99.99% of ALL attempts to discredit anyone OR anything
abou=
t =
> 911 will simply make NO impact upon us, much less an indelible one.
>
> I believe the majority of lurkers to this group, (the NON-alphabet
agency=
o=
> nes, anyway) have long since learned how to tolerate AMBIGUITY, and
have =
inf=
> inite patience in maintaining their confusion about most aspects of
911 w=
ith=
> out having to have the psychological terra firma of any conclusions,
what=
soe=
> ver, and thus will slam the door on noone on no theory.... having the
abi=
lit=
> y to tolerate high levels of ambiguity for many many many decades
before =
us.=
>
>
> So, frankly, when someone of Ruppert's reputation is apparently
"sullied"=
o=
> r we feel we are being instructed to notice he is irrevokably
tarnished -=
-- =
> well, NO such synopse occurs - not against Ruppert, nor against his
accus=
ers=
> , who for all we know actually hold the best and most moral of
intentions=
an=
> d concerns...
>
> Everything has changed since 911, and particularly so, for the
majority o=
f =
> American citizens, who knowingly smell the stench of the archetypal
"rat"=
--=
> and simultaneously know they are well out of their league for what
will =
be =
> obvious professional PSYOPS to manipulate and persuade them to believe
a =
cer=
> tain array of "facts."
>
> Maybe this isn't so where you live, but in the heartland of the USA,
plen=
ty=
> of simple American citizens are totally aware that they comprise part
of=
a =
> large group of American adults who are presumed, by those who wish to
inf=
lue=
> nce them - to be stupid, moronically easy to con, easily swayable, and
mu=
ch =
> too emotionally immature to tolerate remaining in the Stasis of
Ambiguity=
, u=
> ntil the REAL STORY truly comes out - which we also realize is
doubtful w=
ill=
> occur during our lifetimes.
>
> Since there are SO many possible parties who would find it in their
disti=
nc=
> t interest to discredit Ruppert -- and since this is so well
understood b=
y t=
> hose of us who are deemed Ignorant, Naive Masses . . . well, I contend
th=
at =
> it won't work --- and that the ability to hold a variety contradictory
id=
eas=
> at the same time, that this ability will SOAR in intensity in most
Ameri=
can=
> s.
>
>
> JMNSHO.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "bakeknedeisen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The only intelligence organization in the world that thinks the
> > perpetrator of 9-11 is Iraq is the Israeli Defense Intelligence.
Not
> > Mossad - I think their position is that bin Laden did it.
> >
> > Vreeland also works in Defense Intelligence. He has said directly
> > that Iraq and Russia were involved, in a question and answer session
> > quite unique in the respect that Vreeland answered all the questions
> > and complimented the interviewer. He then released a letter by some
> > Iraqi official to Vladimir Putin disclosing plans to blow up NYC
> > which is obviously a hoax.
> >
> > Vreeland says there are two witnesses who saw the Iraq Letter before
> > 9-11. This may or may not be true, since Vreeland himself has said
> > he sometimes gives out false information to fool people. If it was
> > written before 9-11, then it would have to be written by someone
with
> > foreknowledge but even in that case does not lend any authenticity
to
> > the content of the letter. Someone remarked that someone was
editing
> > the second page of the letter hence the delay of the release of the
> > second page. The style of writing in the two pages are different.
> > Neither page looks anything like a Vreeland translation. It makes
> > the ridiculous suggestion that Russia would be relying on Iraq for
> > nuclear weapons to use against the US, and that correspondence over
> > the plot would be written down with 20-20 foresight.
> >
> > The Iraq Letter pretty much gives away that Vreeland is contracting
> > for Israel. There is a well-heeled campaign on to get the US
> > ensnared in a Middle East War that is likely to extend further than
> > Iraq, involving perhaps Israel, the Occupied Territories, Egypt,
> > Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and possibly resulting in major
> > territorial gains for Israel. So to spread a rumor that Iraq was
> > behind the attacks serves the purpose of getting the US in there and
> > having the top two military powers fighting together.
> >
> > Now, if you were Israel, you would divide the American public into
> > four groups: (1) blathering idiots who think that Arabs mounted an
> > unexpected attack on a superpower that has spent 17 trillion dollars
> > on defense and intelligence since WW2 - the vast majority, (2)
people
> > who think that there was enough foreknowledge to prevent an attack
> > planned independently by Arabs but that the government wanted to
"let
> > one happen," (3) people who think that the attacks were planned by
> > the US government, and (4) people like Justin Raimondo who suspect
> > that Israel was behind the attacks.
> >
> > Now we get to our friend Mike Ruppert. When he was set up on
> > Pacifica with Party Line Enforcer David Corn, what did they hit him
> > with over and over?
> >
> > "..but then a different agenda appeared. Kolhatkar asked Ruppert
> > about his belief that U.S. government and agencies were the
> > perpetrators of 9-11. Ruppert calmly explained that he has never
> > said or written that the government agency was the overt force
> > committing the 9-11 atrocities, and that what he has been discussing
> > is the government's foreknowledge of the events and cover-up of that
> > foreknowledge afterwards.
> >
> > "Kolhatkar went on about went on with the interview, but at three
> > additional points asked Ruppert the exact same question about
> > evidence the U.S. government organized and committed the 9-11
> > attacks, something Ruppert has never said or published."
> >
> > Ruppert's briefing paper only comments on issues of previous
> > knowledge. But what does the Grand Chessboard references, all the
> > references to oil deals, and the liason between the Bush and bin
> > Laden families point to? These references were made long before the
> > briefing paper.
> >
> > So one could conclude from reading FTW either option two, or option
> > three, foreknowledge or "organizing and committing."
> >
> > Why are people so interested in this distinction when Ruppert gets
> > heard on Pacifica? Because the number one objective of Israel is to
> > make sure that people think that, foreknowledge or no foreknowledge,
> > that Arabs "organized and committed" the attacks. Ruppert's
briefing
> > paper does not dispute Arab guilt, nor does Rowley et al. As
Charles
> > Krauthammer said on Meet the Press: "Anyone who does not think Arabs
> > were behind the attacks on 9-11 is anti-Semitic"- a funny statement
> > since Arabs are Semites.
> >
> > However, the popularity of Ruppert could lead to him or others
> > convincing the multitudes that the US, not Al-Qaeda alone, was
behind
> > the attacks. There goes the war. So he must be smeared.
> >
> > "Much of it concerned two men, Michael Ruppert and Delmart "Mike"
> > Vreeland. Ruppert, a former Los Angeles cop, runs a website that has
> > cornered a large piece of the alternative-9/11 market." - David
Corn.
> >
> > Corn goes on to cite Vreeland's criminal record. Ruppert and
> > Vreeland, Corn implies, two birds of a feather. Vreeland is a pre-
> > selected candidate for an easy trashing of credibility. Hence
useful
> > to Corn.
> >
> > When you smear a Web Site reporter in a periodical with wider
> > circulation, you are calling attention to him. Despite whatever
> > persuasion you can muster, you run the risk of having the campaign
> > backfire by calling more attention to the Web Site reporter's
> > research. Hence Ruppert gets all the attention and not Chossudovsky
> > and Hopsicker. Chossudovsky focuses on bin Laden's connections with
> > the Bushes and the CIA, flying the bin Ladens out when planes were
> > grounded, CIA/Bin Laden/KLA. Hopsicker focuses on flight training
of
> > Atta and his co-conspirators in Florida and newspaper reports of
> > their training in military bases which , if not true, can be easily
> > debunked by the Pentagon. Both these tacks point directly to CIA
> > planning of 9-11.
> >
> > So if Chossudovsky or Hopsicker were to be featured in LA Weekly or
> > The Nation, it would offer a challenge to that readership the notion
> > that Arabs were solely behind the attacks. Bad for the Israeli War
> > Party. Hence Ruppert with the foreknowledge-only briefing paper gets
> > all the negative attention, which, for Bart Simpson or 9-11
> > truthseekers, is better than no attention. Ruppert has never, to my
> > knowledge, restated the press reports of US military training of
> > Atta (Knight-Ridder etc) and Pakistani officials told in July that a
> > war in Aghanistan was coming in the fall (BBC).
> >
> > Then there is the Iraq letter. I read it and think, who would be
> > stupid enough not to think it is a hoax? But, if it was given to
> > Vreeland by Israeli Defense Intelligence, it is a win-win situation
> > for Israel. People either (1) think it is a hoax and think less of
> > Ruppert's case or (2) think it is genuine and that Iraq is behind
the
> > attacks.
> >
> > There was also Vreeland's statement, made concurrent with his claims
> > that Iraq and Russia were behind the attacks, that Israel was not
> > behind the attacks. That led, I think to a Macnamara9 post claiming
> > the validity of the statement, the same poster who said that
Jonathan
> > Pollard was a CIA set-up and that antiwar.com, which publishes
> > Raimondo and criticizes the "incursions," is a CIA front.
> >
> > So if Vreeland's mission is to make a total fool of Ruppert and
> > Ruppert's case and become a distraction for researchers of 9-11, he
> > has done a good job. And then for the gullible he plants a story
> > that he hopes will become the new big rumor on the internet - that
> > Iraq is behind the attacks and has nuclear weapons. Who else hopes
> > that?
> >
> > There is the latent suggestion here that Corn is working for Israel.
> > It is an unpleasant one. Remember back to my argument with Ruppert
> > when my long-time enjoyment of Corn's columns led to a humbling
> > lecture on Corn's cover-ups of the past. I liked Corn. I have
> > thought that perhaps since Corn wrote about Shackley before the Gary
> > Webb story was reprieved, that Corn thought he was operating under
> > certain constraints, and has a personal vendetta over Ruppert's
> > attacks of `The Blonde Ghost.' But it seems that something else has
> > happened.
> >
> > I came back from a trip and resubscribed to The Nation, and the
first
> > issue that came back has a poem by Calvin Trillin essentially
begging
> > for an invasion of Saudi Arabia. All the critics on Z
> > criticizing `Conspiracy Theories' are Jewish, including the well-
> > respected Norman Soloman.
> >
> > What I'm getting at is that the Jewish left-wing intelligencia I
have
> > admired for so long appears to be in the service, despite what they
> > might say about War and Peace, of an effort to get the US into a
long
> > Middle East quagmire.
> >
> > Ruppert says that Israel is blackmailing Bush over 9-11. Gordon
> > Thomas is bragging (as Mossad mouthpiece) that the foreknowledge
> > stories are a product of Sharon's influence in the media. So I
posit
> > that the "controlled burn" will be controlled to the extent that it
> > will only suggest foreknowledge and incompetence.
> >
> > When Ruppert and McBride square off here about whether US or Israeli
> > intel were behind 9-11, it would appear that Ruppert is defending
> > Israel from the charges on the table. But the moment he suggests
> > that 9-11 is not an autonomous Arab plot, he is working against the
> > Israeli War Lobby. That is the main point here. That is why he is
> > being grilled on what his theory is - CIA organization or
> > foreknowledge. That is why Ruppert's briefing paper, which does not
> > suggest CIA organization of 9-11, is significant in its shift of
> > argumentation.
> >
> > To conclude: Vreeland appears to be working for Israeli defense
intel
> > to help discredit Ruppert and redirect the rumors to suggest Iraqi
> > guilt for 9-11. And I suggest that instead of focusing on just
> > foreknowledge that all the evidence of CIA complicity in the attacks
> > to head of an imminent World War. Foreknowledge proven = bad news
> > for Bush; CIA complicity proven = bad news for the architects of
> > World War III.
Please let us stay on topic and be civil.
To unsubscribe please go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs
-Home Page- www.cia-drugs.org
OM
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
<FONT COLOR="#000099">Free $5 Love Reading
Risk Free!
</FONT><A HREF="http://us.click.yahoo.com/Pp91HA/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/xYTolB/TM";><B>Click
Here!</B></A>
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Please let us stay on topic and be civil.
To unsubscribe please go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs
-Home Page- www.cia-drugs.org
OM
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- End Message ---
